On Mon, 3 Jul 1995, Vigdor Schreibman - FINS wrote:
> Fascinating. Many online providers who administer discussion lists on
> the Net make a special effort to falsely characterize their service as
> news publishers. They do this in order both to secure the focus of
> topical discussion, and to acquire unjustified power through the exercise
> of unilateral censorship over discussion lists. However, in the absence
> of a disciplined methodology to assure free and fair discussion, the only
> function they properly have is to marshall the traffic. That was the
> original purpose of a "moderator." Now to aviod personal liability for
> the content of the traffic such providers may once again be forced to
> stick to their real business without engaging in unilateral censorship.
Vigdor,
Many ISP's (especialy Community Networks) are both publishers and common
carriers. It is in the publishing arena in which we differentiate
ourselves from most large ISP's such as NetCom, BBN, WilTel, PSI, etc.
There are some very large providers such as Compuserve, Prodigy and AoL
which are both ISP's and publishers. I don't agree with your statement
that "the only function they properly have..." I do feel that the
publishing and common carrier aspects of the services should be more
accurately defined.
I am not sure where your aversion to strongly directed discussion is
rooted. I have been part of BBS's which had very specific topics (Amateur
Radio and Avaiation) and I have been very thankful on the rare occasions
when the moderators have stepped in to stop "off topic" discussions.
We do not need a "disciplined methodology to assure free and fair
discussion" in most cases. Certainly where the government is footing
part of the bill, as is the case in most Community Networks, this is a
concern. Where the ISP is a private business they have the right to do
as they wish with their resources.
The reason for treating the two ISP types diferently is that one is
subject to the market and the other is not. When the government pays
your bills the only reason you are responsive to your users or their
needs is some form of altruism (if you believe such a thing exists) or
perhaps your desires are such that they coincide with the needs of your
users. Since this model doen't work terribly well the government must
regulate entities to which it gives away money. The government, in
essence, becomes your market. They pay so they get to choose how the money
is spent and they get to create or endorse a "disciplined methodology to
assure free and fair discussion" if they see fit.
The business whose bills are not being paid by the government should have
no such constraint. This business must respond to the needs of its
cients directly. If it doesn't, their clients can vote with their
pocketbooks and force the ISP out of business. There is no need for a
"disciplined methodology to assure free and fair discussion" coming from
a centralized government because the company is forced to meet the
demands of its clients or go out of business.
Cheers,
Dan